Messages in this thread | | | From | "Lee Chin" <> | Date | Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:07:11 -0500 | Subject | Re: debate on 700 threads vs asynchronous code |
| |
Hi, Thanks for the rpely... my question was more so, with setcontext and swapcontext, I will still be messing with the data cache right?
In otherwords, as long as I have an async system with out setcontext, I know I am good... but with it, havent I degraded to a threaded environment?
Thanks Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:28:34 -0800 To: Lee Chin <leechin@mail.com> Subject: Re: debate on 700 threads vs asynchronous code
> > b) Write an asycnhrounous system with only 2 or three threads where I manage the connections and stack (via setcontext swapcontext etc), which is progromatically a little harder > > > > Which way will yeild me better performance, considerng both approaches are implemented optimally? > > If this is a serious question, an async system will by definition do better. > You have either 700 stacks screwing up the data cache or 2-3 stacks nicely > fitting in the data cache. Ditto for instruction cache, etc. > -- > --- > Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
-- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
Meet Singles http://corp.mail.com/lavalife
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |